I keep getting these emails from the Laborers union: “The Keystone XL Pipeline isn’t just a pipeline, but a lifeline to good, family-supporting jobs.”

In the labor movement we’re supposed to be for anything that creates more paid work. But here’s some heresy for you: I think we need less work.

Senators who voted against the pipeline in November, the union says, threw away a chance to “unlock millions of work hours,” and instead “killed thousands of jobs.”

Is the Senate “killing jobs?” Maybe. Meanwhile, jobs are killing us.

Jobs: Often Awful

Exhibit A: the tragic death of New Jersey fast food worker Maria Fernandes last August, napping in her car between shifts. She was cobbling together at least three Dunkin’ Donuts jobs to make ends meet.

But it’s not just non-union jobs. Exhibit B: Jenny Brown’s story last month on “Fighting Fatigue.” Even unionized pilots, train engineers, and bus drivers are working extreme hours that endanger themselves and others.

Part of the problem is bosses imposing awful schedules. And part of it is we’ll take all the hours we can get, because pay is so low and the cost of living so high.

That means work isn’t shared among all who want it. There’s one 60-hour job instead of two 30-hour jobs, and unemployment stays high.

Then there’s Exhibit C: the Keystone XL pipeline itself. As we near a climate-change point of no return, scientists say we must drastically reduce carbon emissions. The pipeline only worsens the threat.

These jobs could kill us all. Working less isn’t just a humane goal—it’s a planetary necessity.

But it’s not hard to understand why the Laborers are pro-pipeline. Workers need to put food on the table today. So unions push for more work, however awful it might be.

How could we reduce the pressure to work so much, for fast-food workers and train engineers alike? One side of the coin is raising wages—something labor’s been building good momentum for, at least at the bottom of the scale.

The other side, the one we don’t talk about as much, is reducing the cost of living.

Labor for Leisure

We wouldn’t need to work so hard if the rent (and mortgages) weren’t so damn high. If transit were free, and frequent enough. If we had free health care and higher education.

Sound utopian? It shouldn’t. Take the federal money already going to higher ed in loans and grants, hand it straight to public universities instead—and you could have free tuition for all, tomorrow. Same with health care: single-payer would cost less than we already spend on our dysfunctional private system.

In the Netherlands if you want to reduce your hours to part-time, by law your employer has to let you, unless they show it would be a hardship. Lots of workers have taken advantage. Of course, universal health care helps make this option viable.

In a recent issue of Jacobin, Daniel Aldana Cohen tells the wonderful story of 1936 France, where workers struck for and won two weeks’ vacation for everyone.

That summer, “the sub-minister of leisure and sport mandated 40 percent discounts on train fares for once-a-year trips. Hundreds of thousands took advantage right away, nearly two million the following year. Many visited the beach for the first time, while others traveled to see relatives or camp in the countryside.”

Imagine it! For the planet and our health, it’s time to build a labor movement that stands for less labor—not more.

Help In These Times Continue Publishing

Progressive journalism is needed now more than ever, and In These Times needs you.

"Social support structures. Healthcare for the sick. Food for the hungry. A tiny apartment for anyone who is homeless. The absolute minimum."Including for millions of people who have no desire to work and think they should get a handout just for breathing, all paid for by people who work.

Posted by stevesomebody on 2015-01-26 21:57:30

"As far as a "guaranteed welfare check" (let's call it what it is - tell the truth and shame the devil) is concerned, there's no money to pay for all this additional welfare."That's an easy problem to fix: They'll call you rich and raise your taxes so you are "paying your share".

Posted by stevesomebody on 2015-01-26 21:50:01

"and most folks - unless they work union - get their health insurance from Medicaid, Medicare or the Obamacare exchages"And the source for that claim is?

Posted by stevesomebody on 2015-01-26 21:44:07

" freeing up one's time to use as one sees fit"Then by all means start your own business, be your own boss and use your time as you see fit. Finally, yes, there are a great many adults sitting around with nothing to do and if you don't know this you are very naïve.

Posted by stevesomebody on 2015-01-26 21:40:28

I hate to point out this rather large hole in your "logic" but the keystone pipeline is not a fast food joint and the jobs it would create pay a lot more than the UNSKILLED fast food jobs that frankly already pay more than they are actually worth due to minimum wage. This is the way labor, which is a commodity works. Higher skilled workers, which are in generally shorter supply, get paid more than unskilled workers which can be found in surplus all over America. What you want is for unskilled workers to be overpaid via an absurdly high minimum wage for jobs that require no real skill to do.

Posted by stevesomebody on 2015-01-26 21:37:45

Did you READ the article? Must not have, or you would see what the author is getting at.

Why do people comment without reading what they are commenting on?

Posted by splashy79 on 2015-01-20 12:19:17

We will have to agree to disagree here. I do not see any social duty to work. Heck, my wife's boss retired at 47, as a millionaire. If I could do the same, I would.

Posted by dave on 2015-01-19 10:59:44

"Not everybody is married, not everybody is in a man-woman relationship (single people exist, as do gays and lesbians)" - I do not get your point. You can certainly substitute any other relationship style with man/woman.

"If we're going with anecdata, everybody I know works because THEY NEED THE MONEY and most folks - unless they work union - get their health insurance from Medicaid, Medicare or the Obamacare exchages" - Yes, we certainly run in different circles. I have a brother on permanent medical disability, and my parents get Medicare, but I don't know anyone who does not get their insurance through work. Although I have family members in unions, I have no friends in unions.

Posted by dave on 2015-01-19 10:57:05

You and I must run in different circles.

Not everybody is married, not everybody is in a man-woman relationship (single people exist, as do gays and lesbians)

If we're going with anecdata, everybody I know works because THEY NEED THE MONEY and most folks - unless they work union - get their health insurance from Medicaid, Medicare or the Obamacare exchages

Posted by gregoryabutler on 2015-01-19 10:51:15

I have a number of useful skills (interior systems carpentry, vocational instruction, writing) all of which I learned in the context of working - in the case of carpentry I'm a graduate of a Carpenters Union four year apprenticeship program.

I reject this whole idea that people should work just solely based on personal whim

People need to work, society needs our labor to function

Working is a social DUTY - it really doesn't matter if you "like" working or if you "like" your job.

Also, why should homeless people get TINY apartments?

Why not a normal sized one?

In any case, nobody should be sitting on their ass - every able bodied adult should be in the labor force, working, and the government should provide them with a living wage job.

Posted by gregoryabutler on 2015-01-19 10:49:20

You sound like someone who has worked really hard most of his life and achieved moderate success. Congratulations. You have a useful skill and turned it into gainful employment.

> You honestly think everybody else is working for fun?

I think many people are working because of fear. Fear of poverty, fear of being unable to afford healthcare, fear of starving. That is not a healthy environment. People should be working either because they like their job (the lucky ones) or because they want to get X (where X = bigger house, more stuff, nicer car).

Working out of fear causes people to do crazy things. They work three jobs until they collapse. They cut corners and provide horrible service. It's no longer about pride in your work, it's about survival, and it leads to severe drops in quality.

So how do we take away the fear and let people work for the right reasons? Social support structures. Healthcare for the sick. Food for the hungry. A tiny apartment for anyone who is homeless. The absolute minimum.

Now, will that mean millions of Americans sit on their asses and do nothing? Maybe. If those people are happy existing with minimal possessions, minimal housing, and just enough to eat, then why not? That sort of person isn't going to contribute anything worth a damn anyway. At least they won't be in a job they hate, making your life harder by being incompetent. Everyone else will get a job so they can get more/better. They'll do good work because they're not afraid.

Posted by fearless on 2015-01-19 10:15:28

Don't forget, however, and most discussions of unemployment don't seem to mention this, is that many jobs were lost due to technology. It can take one person to do the work that used to take five. Therefore, the remaining four are going to be on the losing side. And this could be why workaholism has risen among those that still have jobs.

Posted by beechnut79 on 2015-01-18 15:25:17

The shorter workweek you mentioned was what many pundits expected with the advent of the modern technology most of us are now so addicted to that we wonder how we ever got by when we didn't have them. But they were wrong because the oligarchs took over and have pretty much held the aces for the past three decades.

Posted by beechnut79 on 2015-01-18 15:21:39

"It only takes about a half hour to answer a Monster.com ad - what do you do with the rest of your time?" - Monster.com is but one of many job-hunting websites. For example, dice.com has job more focusing on technology.

Additionally, there is always more to learn. Much of this can be done through dedicated self-study.

No, I do not operate under the assumption that only some people should have jobs, although I can see how you could get that out of what I wrote. However, I have met many couples where the woman works a job *just* for the health benefits while her husband has a decent paying job without benefits.

Posted by dave on 2015-01-18 12:18:24

There have actually been studies on the behavior of long term unemployed people

Women tend to focus on being caregivers and get occupied with housework, childcare, elder care and other related tasks

That's based on self reporting - in other words, that's what they admitted to the researchers about their activity

It only takes about a half hour to answer a Monster.com ad - what do you do with the rest of your time?

Also, you seem to operate under the assumption that only some people should have jobs, those who "need to make a living"

You honestly think everybody else is working for fun?

I've never met any of those "lot of people who only have jobs for the health insurance" - everybody i know works to pay rent and buy groceries (and lots of them work at jobs that don't have health coverage)

I have the opposite view - I think every adult - from 18 to 62 - should be in the labor force

The world would be a better place if everybody was gainfully employed outside the home

Also, let's be real, a "guaranteed annual income" really would be a welfare check program

I know those are racially charged words in America and if you're like most White folks you think welfare = lazy Black, because that's what corporate media propaganda taught you to think (despite the fact that most American welfare recipients are White and the biggest welfare states - Maine and West Virginia - are overwhelmingly White states) but yes, this would be a welfare check for all program.

I don't support that,and I'm a far left radical

If you're to the right of me, you shouldn't support it either

I support GUARANTEED LIVING WAGE JOBS FOR ALL - an income, guaranteed, but you have to get off your ass and work for it.

Posted by gregoryabutler on 2015-01-18 11:42:50

"Conservative"?

I was literally a card carrying member of the Communist Party USA for 11 years (I left because they weren't radical enough for me)

Posted by gregoryabutler on 2015-01-18 11:36:27

"I'm worried about America's MEN - absent the necessity to work, they'd probably be (depending on age and locale) either sitting in front of the TV drinking beer and watching ESPN or sitting in front of the PlayStation or xBox smoking weed and playing video games." - Every time I have been unemployed, I spent my time job-hunting and improving my skill set. I think you meant that union members would be behaving in the manner you describe.

'As far as a "guaranteed welfare check"' - That is not what is being discussed. But think about it, if we had free higher education and universal healthcare, a lot of people who only have jobs for the health insurance would stay home, and let those of us who need to make a living get those jobs.

Otherwise, I agree with much that you wrote.

Posted by dave on 2015-01-17 20:07:58

You got it there Greg. Typical conservative attitude that you know all about me. BS.

Posted by thoomfoote on 2015-01-17 11:16:26

Spoken like somebody who's never been out of work

Typical limousine liberal pablum

Posted by gregoryabutler on 2015-01-17 10:08:26

I've been a Carpenters Union shop steward for the last 17 years, and a union carpenter for 23 years, so yeah, I kinda think I come from a working class perspective

As far as a "guaranteed welfare check" (let's call it what it is - tell the truth and shame the devil) is concerned, there's no money to pay for all this additional welfare. Even if their was, do you REALLY want to see a nation of Americans sitting on their ass?

I'm sure the WOMEN of America would be out there doing housework and taking care of family, like they always do, working or not.

I'm worried about America's MEN - absent the necessity to work, they'd probably be (depending on age and locale) either sitting in front of the TV drinking beer and watching ESPN or sitting in front of the PlayStation or xBox smoking weed and playing video games.

The research on what idle unemployed workers do with their free time backs me up on this - the women are responsible and take care of home and family...the men sit on their ass and vegetate in front of the flatscreen

That's not a good look

People - especially men- need to work to have self worth

Society needs their labor - every job is important, from dermatologist to dishwasher, from banker to baker, from surgeon to sanitation worker, because (read your Marx) all value comes from labor, and without labor money would be worthless

Society also has lots of work that needs to be done - we need free 24 hour childcare, we need elder care, we need services for the disabled, the mentally ill, new mothers and the sick, we need somebody to sweep the streets, the apartment buildings in urban ghetto neighborhoods like mine need to be repaired and have their boiler rooms maintained and updated - and for those of us who live by the sea, with sea levels rising we need lots and lots of dikes, dams, levees and sluice gates built ASAP

We also need to shift away from imports and build what we buy right here in America

We also need a shorter work week (30 hours with no cut in pay) and more paid vacation time, holidays and maternity leave

All of that would require MORE workers rather than less - sp paying people to sit on their ass when there's work to be done is not an option, even if we could afford it (we can't)

Posted by gregoryabutler on 2015-01-17 10:05:49

Might not unemployment be the solution and not the problem?

Posted by thoomfoote on 2015-01-16 21:24:22

I think, Gregory, you've misunderstood the entire point of this article. And I really doubt that u are coming from a "working class perspective" if you can type the words: "There are lots of idle adults sitting around with nothing to do" without doubling over w/ laughter. A guaranteed basic income would solve many problems, as would "working" less; that doesn't mean "not doing anything;" it means, Gregory, freeing up one's time to use as one sees fit; and Gregory, I know plenty of people who contribute THEIR OWN TIME, not the time they must rent away to pay bills, to help in their own communities. Workers don't need a scolding from the like of you, thanks.

Posted by IGotyernuance Righthere on 2015-01-16 10:48:15

A big WTF? on that headline

Looking at the world from a working class perspective WE NEED MORE WORK

There are lots of idle adults sitting around with nothing to do

There's lots of work to be done - renovating ghetto apartment houses, childcare, afterschool programs, programs for the elderly, home care for the sick and new mothers, youth programs ect

Hell, even keeping the streets properly swept and clean would create lots of jobs

Also, what with the icecaps melting there's lots of work building and installing solar panels and building dikes and sluice gates on the coasts

Who the hell thinks "we need less work"?

Posted by gregoryabutler on 2015-01-15 21:53:45

About this Blog

Working In These Times brings you weekly coverage of the labor movement and the struggle of workers everywhere to organize for a better world. more